Please note that when you are analyzing, for example, Japanese multinationals in the electronics industry, your comparisons do not have to be limited to Japanese rivals. Comparisons with Asia Pacific and European multinationals may be more apt and useful. The same point applies to Korea, Chinese and Taiwanese firms.

Consider a number of perspectives, including the aims of Japanese multinationals in relation to global strategies; the aims of Korean and Chinese multinationals and international business strategies; differences between industries and types of business; the degree of global versus regional control, and changes in operational control over time; the competitive advantages of these multinationals compared to those of rivals; variations in management, organization, and operations between home country and host nations; the ability of Japanese, Korean and Chinese multinationals to compete in Europe, Asia and North America, and their ability to adapt to changes in policy and markets; and the policies of host governments and the relevance of the EU.

Analysis

1.    What is the question, and how do you provide a precise answer? What is your overall response, and then which analytical structure will you adopt to substantiate your stated view?

2.    Background, business strategies and general patterns. When did nations begin to move towards large scale FDI? Where did the investment go? Are there differences in FDI patterns between industries or countries? Why did firms decide to become multinationals? What therefore was their strategy or motivation? Entry mode? Differences because timing of FDI, multinationals versus services, or between countries? To what extent are choices and decisions related to existing FDI theories and approaches? Market, efficiency, resource v asset seeking? What are the overall patterns in nations and between time periods?

To what extent does evidence support existing FDI theories and approaches? Or which FDI theories help to explain what happened in this and later sections?

To what extent do you need to include home and host government policies, and to what extent will you deal with this separately below?

3.    How did MNEs, once set to be ‘multinational-ized’, succeed as multinationals? What O advantages, capabilities or resources did they possess to succeed, or what advantages, capabilities or resources did they need to acquire or develop when ‘multinational-izing’?

Analyze production and operations management as an ownership advantage? In which industries or companies, and generally for which nations has this been a source of advantage for multinationals, a reason for success?

4.    Management of global production chains, or SCM? Overlap with production and operations management, but also a new dimension in terms of transnational based advantages?

5.    R&D, innovation?

6.    Brand, design, product, and marketing?

7.    Management skills and experience? Human resource management skills, training, or is this not transferable?

8.    Management and organization, or overlapped with point 7? To what extent have strategic needs evolved after the initial act of FDI, and how is this related to management, organisation, levels of centralization, decentralization,  regionalization, arising strategies, changes in the relative fortunes of home and host markets? Employment of expatriates v locals? Ability of AP multinationals to change their organization and management style? Usefulness of FDI theories and approaches?

9.    Role of government in stimulating inward FDI, and allowing and supporting outward FDI? Notion of institutional advantage? Political economy and macro-economic perspectives in FDI theories and approaches?

10.    Conclusion. AP multinationals have some common characteristics that have allowed them to compete globally and in Europe, alongside companies from North America and Europe? Or differences between AP nations fundamental? Or differences between industries more important? Or general trends in 1980s, 1990s, or since 2000 more formative?